Talk:Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-14/neo-nazi-thomas-sewell-arrested-melbourne/100140902. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Grampians Link...

...seems to go to the wrong Grampians. 43.225.61.171 (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hersant, Sewell and up to 15 other masked men violently attacked two passengers in a car and smashed windows. Sewell's DNA was found inside the car.

Apparently the person who wrote the above knows what happened, given he hasn't been tried yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:1D4:5600:6145:4121:3C32:EE59 (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The material is well sourced and has been referenced. Just because you don't like reality doesn't make it so. AlanS^talk 06:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Notability

Why does this person have their own article. Who next? A bikie gang leader? 106.69.12.92 (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Repeated slander by User AlanS

In paragraph 4 of opening section user AlanS is inserting opinioniated slander using wording that does not appear in the sourced article. His changes have been reverted on numerous occasions by other users also. 103.210.25.80 (talk) 06:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The use of the term grooming is appropriate as sections of the media have used it here to refer to the indoctrination of children into far-right ideologies. Additionally refer to here. I'll add in additional content. AlanS^talk 08:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

You are using an unreliable source for your comment. I have removed it as per BLP. Please familiarise yourself with our sourcing policy for WP:BLP --Pete (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes, another case of anything Skyring doesn't like is an unreliable source. I believe we've been here before. AlanS^talk 10:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Skyring is correct, the fact you are so persistent about incorrectly using the word 'grooming' shows your bias, especially when multiple other users have shown you why you are wrong. You very clearly don't like the person this article is about and you should refrain from editing articles where you cant be neutral when doing so. Korora (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

You ought not cast baseless aspersions. I've provided reliable source to substantiate my good faith edits. AlanS^talk 23:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Cut the lies Alan. We can all tell you are being emotional and its causing bias in your edits. You don't like Thomas Sowell so you're trying to slander him. 103.210.25.80 (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

You need to cease the discourteous and baseless personal attacks or you'll find yourself before AN/I. AlanS^talk 06:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Avoid editing articles about politics, for the benefit of the greater wikipedia community and the public 103.210.25.80 (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

You're not doing yourself any favours here by continuing to caste discourteous and baseless aspersions. In your own interests I suggest you cease. AlanS^talk 23:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

If it was a left wing political event (such as a climate change protest, walk out, or whatnot organized by adults) with a child present I don't believe anyone would find it appropriate to label as grooming, in order to keep a neutral POV we either need to label both as grooming or neither and given I can't see any examples of the reverse being true, keep biased language out of it. TheProfessionalNamer (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph pending consensus here. It isn't mentioned in the body of the article - such as it is - so why put it in the lede, which is meant to be a summary of the whole? The supporting article is very light on details and I don't think it carries enough weight for us to go kicking this guuy in the guts with it. Was he convicted of grooming or anything inappropriate to do with a child? No.

Not that I am keen to give this snake a free pass but we do have to follow policy.

Thoughts regarding BLP? --Pete (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Point taken about having content in the lead that is not in the body. I have put it in the body. I presume this is acceptable. AlanS^talk 04:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the definition of grooming, Cambridge defines it as "the criminal activity of becoming friends with a child in order to try to persuade the child to have a sexual relationship", this is not taking place (obviously) so it would be a slanderous accusation regardless of whatever (blatantly biased) news source you bring up suggesting it is the case by distorting the meaning of the word. TheProfessionalNamer (talk) 04:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@TheProfessionalNamer, since it become obvious previous that consensus was against inclusion of the term I haven't edited to re-include it so I'm confused why you're bringing it up? AlanS^talk 04:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The fact you're so stubborn and it took 5 different people to explain why you were wrong shows your bias and why you should avoid editing political articles as you clearly struggle to understand why a neutral POV is so important. 103.210.25.80 (talk) 05:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Once again, cease with your personal attacks and aspersion casting. AlanS^talk 05:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I was under the impression you were going to reinstate the previous wording of calling them "groomers", you clearly did not do this, the new wording you added (before it was reversed) I don't find particularly relevant information for the page although I don't think it's that big of an issue neutrality wise at it seemed rather neutral to me. TheProfessionalNamer (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I've subsequently edited to include more sources. AlanS^talk 04:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any connection with the subject of the article and the child beyond the fact that they attended the same event. I'm not seeing the journalist make a link, I'm not seeing these "experts and pundits" making the link. I'm only seeing one person doing this - you, buddy, and you've been strongly criticised here already - and I don't think that we in Wikivoice should say that this guy is grooming or indocrinating children based on such flimsy links. This is something that needs a solid consensus. Be warned, any attempt to restore this material without consensus and I'll report you. I stongly suggest that you discuss the exact wording you want and explain how it is supported by the sources quoted, because I am not seeing it. --Pete (talk) 07:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

You should be careful about supporting criticism which takes the form of aspersion casting and personal attacks Skyring. As per use of the term "grooming" the material you removed did not include that and you well know it. Do not presume to warn me when you are engaged in edit warring. AlanS^talk 07:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

As warned, I've taken this to the next step with a report here. You are invited to present your views there. --Pete (talk) 07:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Indoctrination of family members

@User:Skyring the following source which was from an undercover journalistic investigation contains the following "Sewell wants network members to indoctrinate their wives, girlfriends and children, but even he recognises that this will require keeping secrets from them." Network refers to the Nationalist Socialist Network which Sewell is the leader of. I'm not proposing this be inserted word for word anywhere into the article for obvious reasons, the question I put to you is do you find this acceptable as the basis for writing content about Sewell seeking to indoctrinating the family members, including children, of his followers? I'm not proposing a lot of content.

You was never a Catholic, I take it? --Pete (talk) 09:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I hope you're not proposing that Catholicism is an hateful, extremist ideology? Ps, no. AlanS^talk 09:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

You headed this section, Indoctrination of family members, remember? --Pete (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

AlanS should be forbidden from editing this article for a set peroid of time. The level of bias is disgraceful. 103.210.25.80 (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Your continued personal attacks are noted and reflect on you more than anyone else. You should cease. AlanS^talk 23:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The heading is what I thought of at the time. It doesn't need to be something that goes into the article. If we ended up agreeing on only a sentence then that would not be something we would need a heading for. AlanS^talk 06:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Pete, do you have any comments on the substance of what I what I was discussing? AlanS^talk 06:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism and unnecessary details

I removed some vandalism in the article which was just essentially calling the guy a doodie-head (as if that is supposed to be more insulting to most people than being called a nazi), but there may be other vandalism on the page, it would be nice if someone familiar with the subject give the article a quick glance....

Also, the final paragraph of the "Activities" section seems unnecessary and possibly just equates to Wikipedia serving as a directory since the entire purpose of the sentence is to link to his telegram channel. I'm leaving it because I'm uncertain if it should be there and I'm generally in favor of including all details even minutiae, but this seems out of place.2600:6C56:6100:46E:C512:2D8B:787:3DE3 (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC) Garymericanoaintgotnowikipediaaccount

Removed telegram link as mentioned above, adding a link to a news site that mentions they use telegram, as opposed to directing users to the personal telegram.

I've also removed all mentions of European Mens Movement or whatever nonsense, it wasn't referenced in any article, replaced with Nationals Socialist Network, which is already referenced on a wikipedia page National Socialist Network. Charmanderpants (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't the person who had put the material in there but doing a quick google on the term "European Australian Movement" I quickly found an article by the ABC which refers to Sewell as its leader. You should conduct basic research before unnecessarily editing articles. AlanS^talk 06:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC) AlanS^talk 06:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mean to imply you did, I was just responding in the thread. As for EAM I removed it because it was not cited in the article. It's not our responsibility to find citations for other users contributions. Charmanderpants (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Jacob Hersant is the official leader of the NSN as far as I know, the European Australia Movement which is headed by Sewell runs all their fitness and fighting stuff where as the NSN does all their banner drops and stickers. I suggest doing research before removing things for no reason TheProfessionalNamer (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I'd suggest you take your own advice instead of engaging in oringal research. It is well referenced that Sewell is leader of both. Refer to the link I provided above or just do a google on "Natoinalist Socialist Network". AlanS^talk 05:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, Hersant was the original founder of NSN, and Tom the EAM, but due to Hersant's bail conditions, Sewell appears to be the effective leader of NSN at this point in time. TheProfessionalNamer (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Bias in the opening sentence.

Look at any prominent left wing activist or black victim of police violence who both have criminal convictions and a wikipedia article, and tell me if any of them call the person a criminal like this in the opening sentence, despite many of them having far longer and more serious lists of convictions.

Even Martha stewart lists a number of positive things about her and her life, before mentioning her conviction on insider trading in the second paragraph, as it's one of the most notable things she's known for.

Putting "convicted criminal" in the opening sentence smacks of blatant partisan bias, attempting to paint the subject in as negative a light as possible from the opening sentence. It would seem more appropriate to list this in another section detailing why this person is notable for various public clashes with authority connected to his ideology.

Imagine if we opened the George Floyd article by calling him a convicted criminal, something that factors prominently in his notariety. What would the reaction be?

NPOV. JStressman (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the opening sentence is a fair assessment of why Sewell has become notable enough for his own page.

Sewell's criminality, in particular the Grampians armed robbery and security guard assault brought him to the forefront of the Australian, and in particular Victorian public.

Martha Stewart was in public life for 40 years before her conviction and had her own television program. George Flyod was unknown until his murder. Tom Sewell was unknown in the eyes of the Australian public until the Grampians armed robbery.

I would also argue his self professed Neo Nazism is a far more defamatory statement towards his character than being called a convicted criminal. GrandmaPoss (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

No armed robbery was committed at the Grampians, this is blatantly false information, an alleged armed robbery occurred at the Cathedral Range, but that has not even been proven at court yet.

He mainly became well known due to the Grampians camping trip where absolutely zero violent crime took place, and the 60 minutes documentary by Nick McKenzie on his organization, not any criminal actions.

Tom Sewell has been running/involved neo-Nazi groups for the better part of a decade and that is what he is most well known for, not any criminality as you are suggesting. TheProfessionalNamer (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem is most of the Neo Nazi groups run by Sewell over the last decade are not well known as evidence by their omission in this very article. The Cathedral ranges allegations and the assault of the Channel 9 Security guard propelled him into the spotlight, not anything he actually did as an activist.

Regardless, the original objection was that 'convicted criminal' was bias as it was attempting to paint him in a negative light - being a Neo Nazi is far more damning of his character than being a convicted criminal. GrandmaPoss (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The cathedral ranges incident was certainly not the cause of his propulsion into the limelight, rather being the Grampians incident, the 60 minutes infiltration and documentary and more recently protesting, not any alleged criminal activity. TheProfessionalNamer (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The 60 minutes story wasn't just on Sewell, we need to remember. It was on a broad range of characters. Yes 60 minutes did bring him some level of notoriety, however the charges he is currently facing for the events at The Cathedral ranges and his conviction for the assault of security guard at Channel 9 and the events surrounding those events have certainly drawn even greater amounts of attention again. He is a convicted criminal and it is appropriate to refer to him as such given 2 out of 4 subsections under the activities section deal either with confirmed criminal activities or allegations of criminal activities. Confirmed criminal activities and allegations of criminal activities make up a substantial proportion of this article. AlanS^talk 06:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The 60 minutes story was primarily on Sewell (given it was a group that he leads and plays a foundational role in) and bought him great amounts of public attention, I would say his assault conviction brought him a decent amount of attention but not to the degree of the 60 minutes documentary, or the Grampians incident, most people who know who he is know him for either that or the recent protests in the streets of Melbourne, I think having his assault conviction in the third paragraph as it currently is is appropriate. TheProfessionalNamer (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Fully 2 out of 4 sub-sections of the Activities sections is made up of confirmed criminal behaviour or confirmed criminal behaviour. His court appearances and convictions are notable in their own right especially given how they Channel 9 one came about. AlanS^talk 02:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay? His convictions are notable, but they are only notable because of his prior actions, if he was completely unknown (long you are suggesting he was before his convictions) then his convictions would hold little to no weight. TheProfessionalNamer (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

RfC (Referring to Thomas Sewell as a convicted criminal in the first paragraph of the lede)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is to include this information in the first paragraph. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 00:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Should Thomas Sewell be referred to as a convicted criminal in the first paragraph of the lede? TarnishedPath^talk 05:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT. The opening paragraph should follow major events in the article. TarnishedPath^talk 05:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Unless I'm mistaken the altercation that led to the conviction appears to be the main reason for his notability. It's inclusion in the first paragraph fits well within MOS:LEADBIO. Nemov (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Nemov He was in a 60 minutes segment prior to that, He was also in a 60 minutes segment, but that was after the attack on the security guard and so were a bunch of other characters. He was by no means the centre of attention. The attack on the security guard is what really amplified the main reason for his notability, particularly given the place it occured. I would think it is the main reason he gets articles in heaps of media outlets everytime he sneezes these days. TarnishedPath^talk 00:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Nemov, just out of interest here's the first version of the page when it was approved for mainspace out of Articles for Creation. TarnishedPath^talk 08:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Weak Support after having a quick read of the article I couldn't find anything saying Sewell served any time in jail, therefore I feel saying convicted criminal may be a bit misleading. Instead perhaps maybe saying "Sewell has been convicted of $x$, $y$, and $z$" may be a bit more clearer for readers. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  @GMH Melbourne FYI, have a read of the last sentence of the Cathedral Ranges section, which states he was sentenced to jail time already served. TarnishedPath^talk 02:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for bringing that to my attention, I still feel stipulating Sewell's convictions is more accurate, that being said, I am also fine with stating Sewell is a convicted criminal. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Stipulate convictions without "criminal". Otherwise it sounds too much like someone who makes a living from serial crime. Senorangel (talk) 03:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: TarnishedPath, would you mind rephrasing the RfC question to remove the “Given that” premise? The question, as it follows the comma should be enough for neutrality. — HTGS (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  @HTGS I've rephrased per your suggestion. TarnishedPath^talk 01:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support - seems like to me that his main notability derives from his activities surrounding him being an Australian neo-Nazi, as evidenced by the articles title. His criminal behavior seems well covered in the subsequent paragraphs, and maybe, just possibly, those paragraphs could be reduced just a little bit to make room for a sentence about his anti-Trans views described in the March 2023: anti-transgender rights rally sub-section.

And on a side note, it appears he is also anti-immigration too, and apparently likes to recruit young boys into his cause: the young ones are more dedicated to the cause, making them preferable. Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 02:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: The present text in which his crimes and convictions are given in some detail gives a great deal more context than simply adding "convicted criminal" would do, which could mean so many things and which implies that crime is his profession and source of his notability. Pincrete (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support, a single sentence mention is fine.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support There is no good reason not to mention it. — Sadko (words are wind) 13:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead problems

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Cameron Dewe would you mind if I cut the lead-too-long tag? I don’t feel like the problem is actually the length itself, and I think if it is sorted for the lead-follows-body issues, that should sort it out.

To address the root of the problem, the body is structured in a way that makes it unintuitive how to add new topics (Views; Activities; and Personal life), so editors are likely to just add them to the lead. A common problem. — HTGS (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@HTGS: I think the lead is still probably a bit verbose, especially when it gets into the third and fourth paragraphs which appear to repeat, almost word for word, what is said in the body rather than summarizing the assaults he was convicted of in a sentence or two. Also the way these events are conveyed reads like an attack article as it focuses on the convictions first, not that the convictions arise out of criminal assaults. MOS:BLPCHRONO advises "In general, present a biography in chronological order, from birth to death, except where there is good reason to do otherwise. Within a single section, events should almost always be in chronological order." I take that to mean convictions are written about after the details of the assault are explained. The first line says he is a convicted criminal, the rest of the lead does not really need to go into that much additional detailed explanation, especially when this is explained in the body in the same detail as I see in the lead. Advice at MOS:LEADLENGTH implies that a lead should not exceed about 10% of an article and the number of words should be proportionate to the size of the article. Also it should give a appropriate degree of weight to the importance of various events subjects life.

To me, a short and more concise lead should actually discourage editors adding to the lead, as it would suggest they should look to the body of the article to add more detail; perhaps even adding a new section or two. As you indicate, part of the issue is the layout of the body, with Personal life coming after views and activities, which seems to leave no room for expansion. It might be better if the order was reversed, with a historical life outline in chronological order appearing first, followed by sections about views and activities. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cameron Dewe, with the material about the "Revealed documentary" being moved to the body can the tag about the lede containing information which is not contained in the body of the article be removed? TarnishedPath^talk 04:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @TarnishedPath. I had only skimmed the tags, so didn’t realise that was the only info not contained in body.

The same should be taken as true regarding the rest of the article. I am not well-versed on the topic, so I’ll leave cleanup to you and others, @Cameron Dewe. I certainly think a standard chrono order could well be an improvement; the only reason ‘Personal life’ sections usually come last is because for most bios that stuff is less relevant for the reader than the bulk of the body. — HTGS (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the personal life section, I dare say there's probably not going to be a hell of a lot available in the WP:RS to fill that out. The bloke's notability started when he decided he was going to go to a TV station and belt a security guard because he didn't like what the TV station was going to play about him and his merry bunch of LARPers. TarnishedPath^talk 04:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Ps, I've removed the lede extra info tag as I believe that this has been addressed. TarnishedPath^talk 04:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

PS, I reduced the lede (particularly the 3rd paragraph) a bit. TarnishedPath^talk 04:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I have removed reference to their New Zealand birth as the only reliable source I could locate is https://www.countycourt.vic.gov.au/files/documents/2023-10/sentencing-remarks-dpp-v-sewell-hersant.pdf and we can't use that per WP:BLPPRIMARY. TarnishedPath^talk 05:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: Thank you - That was my primary concern about extra information being in the lead section. A person, born in New Zealand, but now residing in Australia, is entitled to call themselves an Australian because they are normally legally entitled to reside there. Their country of birth only becomes an issue if they Australian citizenship is an issue. So, suggesting the person is a "New Zealand born Australian" in the lead would suggest the article will include discussing issue with their place of birth in the Australian context. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cameron Dewe, I suspect the information about his country of birth was likely placed in the article by someone with a close relationship to him given I couldn't find much about it except in that court transcript and other wikis. It can stay out until such time that there are suitable sources to justify its inclusion. TarnishedPath^talk 06:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: Thanks. In both New Zealand and Australia, one self-identifies their ethnicity. So if the subject chooses to claim he is a "European Australian" then he is entitled to claim so. To me, by his actions, the subject is identifying himself as "Australian" and does not see his country of birth as being a barrier to being one. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cameron Dewe, I found a single source that references his New Zealand birth in once of the grouped lists of citations. I've added it to the infobox, but I don't think his new zealand birth needs to be added to the lede as I only found it once. TarnishedPath^talk 08:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: Agreed. I do not think his place of birth is significant enough to be in the lead section. Just the info-box is sufficient. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cameron Dewe, is the reduction in the lede sufficient do you think for removal of the lede notice? TarnishedPath^talk 11:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: Yes, I think the lead section is a better summary now. It no longer reads like the evidence for every active criminal offence is being listed in the lead, just enough to characterize the nature of his offending and reasons for imprisonment. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.